2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069 Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, AK
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Shared Whiteflies and Shared Chemistries
Among Key Whitefly Hosts
Intercrop Interactions
Cross-commodity
Insecticide Usage: Spatial
Analysis of Management
Practices, Control & Risks
Winter Vegetables
Spring Melons
Peter C. Ellsworth, John Palumbo,
Al Fournier, Yves Carriere
Arizona Pest Management Center /
Department of Entomology
University of Arizona
Fall Melons
Ellsworth/UA
Cotton
Ellsworth/UA
In Arizona, we are investing considerable IPM
resources to research, develop, and analyze
spatially-explicit data that can be used in advising
clientele and in evaluating programs.
In AZ, our desert ecosystem is transformed by
water into a very complex agroecosystem. AZ’s year
round growing season provides for a sequence of
crop plants, winter vegetables like broccoli, lettuce,
other cole crops, spring melons (esp. cantaloupes),
summer cotton, and fall melons. These crop islands
provide for perfect habitat for whiteflies, and our
focus was on the intercrop interactions that were
possible with this pest and that demanded a high
level of integration in our IPM programs.
In one such program, we have a WR-IPM funded
project to evaluate the adoption of crosscommodity IPM and resistance management
guidelines for whiteflies by growers of cotton,
vegetables and melons in Arizona.
Photo credit: JCP
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
1
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
2
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Whitefly X-IPM…
…depends on cooperation
among grower’s of
cotton, spring &
fall melons, &
vegetables.
IPM & IRM guidelines emerged from a stakeholderengaged process; simple yet ecologically-relevant
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
Singular attempts to deploy recommendations in
one crop especially for a mobile, polyphagous pest
seems futile, when registrations of key chemistries
are broad across multiple crops. Thus, our crosscommodity effort concentrates on elements where
we can integrate our practices across multiple
crops. Resistance management is a shared
responsibility that extends across commodity
borders. Cross-commodity cooperation can be key
to the sustainability of a resistance management
plan, and in Arizona, we have achieved some
remarkable agreements among growers of several
key whitefly crop hosts, which I will now detail.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
The specifics of the stakeholder process are beyond
the scope of what I can cover in this presentation.
However, I can say that this was not a desktop
exercise limited to 1 or 2 people. Instead, these
guidelines, which were published and disseminated
in 2003, were the result of a year-long,
stakeholder-engaged process spear-headed and led
by Dr. John Palumbo. And while we did not and
never do have perfect data or information, by
engaging clientele directly in the development of
these guidelines, we were able to forge a very
simple set of rules for neonicotinoid usage. Yet
through understanding of our system spatially, we
also have ecologically-relevant guidelines as a
result.
3
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
4
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Generation Times & Seasonal
Contribution by Major Crops
Three Common Communities
• Cotton-Intensive, Multi-Crop, and Cotton / Melon
F10 F11
F3
F13
J
Ellsworth/UA
Neonicotinoids are critical to our whitefly control
system. Yet real and perceived risks for resistance
among growers of different crops within different
communities in Arizona are not the same.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
5
May 20,2008
F2
M
J
Ju
A
S
O
N
D
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
6
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Resistance Risks Associated with Shared
Neonicotinoid Uses in a Multi-Crop Community
(e.g., Yuma – past usage)
(eg., Yuma – potential usage)
Melons
Neonicotinoid
Vegetables
Neonicotinoid
Vegetables
Cotton
De facto practice, 1993–2003
F10 F11
F3
F13
J
A
F5 F6
F12
F9
From Palumbo et al. 2003
Established Pattern of Neonicotinoid Uses
Prior to New Cotton Registrations
Melons
M
F4
F8
To illustrate the extreme risks of resistance in our
most complex cropping system, we can break the
system down into component parts. First, we view
the generational production and relative abundance
of whiteflies through time, again, where green
represents the contributions of vegetables to
overall whitefly abundance, white for cotton and
orange for melons in this example for communities
in Yuma.
So rather than develop a single rule to be followed
statewide, we attempted to develop guidelines that
could be applied differentially according to cropping
community and proportional to the inherent risks of
whitefly problems and resistance.
Three cropping “communities” were identified and
targeted for this approach: Cotton-Intensive, MultiCrop, and Cotton/Melon (not pictured). White =
cotton; orange = melons; green = vegetables
(mostly lettuce); and gray = non-treated and/or
non-whitefly hosts (mostly small grains, corn,
sorghum, and alfalfa).
F
F1
F7
F
F1
M
A
F4
F5 F6
F7
F8
F12
F10 F11
F9
F3
F2
M
F13
J
Ju
A
S
O
N
D
J
Ellsworth/UA
The second component is the established pattern of
neonicotinoid usage, or really the periods during
which residues are present, as shown here for
vegetable and melon crops in Yuma valley. This
pattern of usage was the de facto practice for 10
years while essentially only soil-applied
imidacloprid was being used, and used ostensibly
without problems of resistance. This latter fact was
supported by the routine resistance monitoring that
Dr. Tim Dennehy had done statewide over the last
decade.
F
F1
F4
F5 F6
F7
F8
F12
F9
F2
Not Sustainable
M
A
M
J
Ju
A
S
O
N
D
Ellsworth/UA
If neonicotinoids were to expand to the cotton
crops in these complex communities, these
products would be depended on in the mid-summer
window as well. Transposing these potential use
patterns over whitefly generations, and the
potential problem becomes apparent. This potential
overall use pattern for neonicotinoids in this
ecosystem is, we believe, not sustainable.
From Palumbo et al. 2003
From Palumbo et al. 2003
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
7
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
8
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Preserve a Neonicotinoid-free Period
in Multi-Crop Communities
Melons
Sharing Neonicotinoids
Neonicotinoid
Neonicotinoid* Limitations:
Vegetables
Maximum usage by crop per season
I
II* III
NonIGRs Pyr Pyr
Cotton
F10 F11
F3
F13
J
May 20,2008
F
F1
M
A
F4
F5 F6
F7
F8
F12
Community
Cotton
Melons
Multi-Crop
0
1
1
Cotton / Melon
1
1
—
Cotton-Intensive
2
—
—
F9
F2
*Seed,
M
J
Ju
A
Vegetables
S
O
N
Soil, or Foliar
D
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
Thus, we concluded that, despite new registrations
of neonicotinoids, cotton growers should depend on
the original 1996 plan that includes selective IGRs
used first, and non-pyrethroid and pyrethroid
insecticides as needed, rather than making use of
the newly available foliar neonicotinoids in cotton.
Under John Palumbo’s leadership, we developed a
stakeholder-driven set of guidelines that, in its
simplest form, in essence, restricts neonicotinoids
as a class to just two uses per cropping community.
In a Cotton-Intensive community, growers of
cotton there can use up to 2 non-consecutive
neonicotinoids per season, while in Cotton/Melon
communities, those two uses are shared between
the cotton and melon grower. Perhaps most
controversial, in the Multi-Crop community, the
cotton growers there forego any usage of this
chemical class, reserving the two uses to melon and
vegetable growers there who are so dependent on
this class for their whitefly control.
This effectively creates a neonicotinoid-free period
that has been the de facto condition in these
complex communities for the previous decade
(1993-2003).
From Palumbo et al. 2003
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
9
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
10
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Cooperative Extension Model
Spatial Considerations
• Identify problem through stakeholder feedback
– Stable whitefly management threatened by overuse of a
key class of chemistry
• Whiteflies residential inseason
• Opportunity for 3 – 4
“transfers” per year
• 2.2 km range for < 5% of
population, annual range
of 6.6 – 8.8 km
• Develop solutions through applied research &
education
– Analysis of agroecosystem suggests variable risks;
guidelines are generated, published & workshops
conducted
• Assess & measure impacts and changes in client
behavior
• Whitefly “communities”
= all those sensitive host
crops grown within a 2mile radius annually
• Develop feedback & make adjustments in
research & education
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
While the differential risks are obvious, some sort
of spatial scale had to be defined. Without
discussing the details today, we defined our
whitefly “communities” (areas of potentially
interbreeding and moving whiteflies) as all those
sensitive host crops grown within a 2-mile radius
annually. This happens to be an area that we
believed that crop consultants (PCAs) could readily
identify and anticipate production and insecticide
use in a local area.
What I have detailed so far today, quickly, is the
classic Extension model, where workers identify
problems through stakeholder engagement and
they develop solutions through applied research
and education. These are time-tested standards in
Extension. However, a modern program continues
with formal assessments that measure impacts and
changes in client behavior. With this information,
we can benefit from feedback that helps us make
needed adjustments in our research & education
programs.
This funded effort is an opportunity for us to invest
in the 2nd half of our approach: assess, measure,
and develop feedback and adjust programs.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
11
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
12
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Cross-Commodity
Agreements on
Neonicotinoid Use
1 use
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
1080 Data
Hypothesis
MCneo < CIneo
• ADA Database
• Verified ‘01–‘05 data
• Estimate 70–90% of
cotton insecticide
data is reported on
1080
1 use
Cotton
Vegetables
Melons
1 use
• Section-level
resolution ONLY!
Yuma
1 use
0 uses
2 uses
Palumbo et al. 2003
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
I want to emphasize that these guidelines did not
come from a vacuum. They were developed in
consultation with the industries they serve, cotton
growers, vegetable and melon growers,
professional crop consultants, and the affected
agrochemical companies. Further, the ecological
context is relevant to the key pest target.
Compliance is voluntary, but this project measures
this explicitly in Arizona and I will share with you
some of this preliminary data.
The tools we need to do this assessment include a
rich database of pesticide use reporting data
acquired from our own Arizona Department of
Agriculture. We do not have 100% mandatory use
reporting in AZ (as does CA). However, all customapplied (for hire) and all aerial applications
(upwards of 80%) and some other pesticides must
be reported to the state via the L-1080 form. We
estimate that for 70-90% of all cotton insecticide
applications are reported to ADA. The data includes
the crop, target pest(s), location (T.R.S.), and
product and rate.
In particular, we can examine the hypothesis that
cotton growers in Multi-Crop communities should
be making less use (if any) of neonicotinoids
relative to cotton growers in Cotton-Intensive
communities within similar localities (to control for
differences in pest pressures).
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
Our resolution is only down to individual sections,
and not individual fields, as only the legal
descriptions are captured in this reporting process.
13
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
14
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Group Adoption
May 20,2008
Township
• Examine usage of key
insecticides
• Cotton grower in this type
of community should not
be using neonicotinoids
• 36 sections
– Each section
is 1 mile
square
• 9 sections
(3x3) roughly
equivalent to
“community”
In cotton,
CI: 2
CM: 1
MC: 0
MCneo = 0
(simplified spatial analysis)
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
We also have access to detailed GIS-based crop
maps statewide as maintained by a cotton-grower
agency, the Arizona Cotton Research & Protection
Council. Between these two datasets we are able to
identify the cropping make-up of each section and
beyond.
In the U.S., we are fortunate in that the landmass
of this country is laid out on a grid that bears a
legal description. One unit of this description is the
“Township” which is 36 sq. miles in size made up of
a 6 x 6 sectional grid. Each section is 1 mile square
and numbered as shown. Nine sections (3x3) are
roughly equivalent to a whitefly cropping
“community” as defined in our guidelines.
We wished to measure what incentives and
constraints there are in complying with our crosscommodity guidelines. Because the unit of interest
is a community, individual behaviors are not as
important as the adoption by whole groups within
each community. I will present you a simplified
analysis that focuses mainly on cotton-grower
behavior only and on the usage of neonicotinoids.
But before I show the data, I would like to briefly
explain the approach we are taking.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
15
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
16
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Community
Community
• User in focal
section should
make choices
based on the
community in
which he/she
is embedded
• Each section
is a member
of 8 other
communities
• Number of
fields not
currently
known
• Simplified
analysis
• Section %
averages only
• Cotton uses
only
(simplified spatial analysis)
(simplified spatial analysis)
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
Each quadrant is a 3 x 3 section grid and roughly
approximates an effective “whitefly community”,
which we defined, in guidelines, as the entire
cropping community within a 2-mile radius. In this
project, we examined communities and the section
level pesticide records for those areas. In specific,
we will examine neonicotinoid use by cotton
growers in each of the 3 community types defined
by the guidelines. Can a grower perceive
“resistance risk” properly in his/her area and follow
the applicable guideline?
Bear in mind that one section can be a member of 8
other communities that might be variably defined.
But that again, the user will make decisions based
on the cropping pattern in the surrounding 8
sections plus in the focal section.
At this time, we have not quantified the number of
fields per section. So all response variables
discussed today will be Section % averages, rather
than uses / field or total acres.
I.e., A user in a focal section should be making
whitefly control product choices based on the
community in which he or she is embedded.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
17
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Market
Forces
% Sprays
Whitefly
Pressure
thiamethoxam
2001
acetamiprid
2002
18
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Cotton Grown Within
Different “Whitefly
Communities”
Factors Influencing Adoption
of Guidelines
Behavior
Change
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
C
= Cotton-Intensive
CM
= Cotton / Melon
CV
= Cotton / Vegetable!!!
CMV
= Multi-Crop (cotton, melons, vegetables)
dinotefuran
2003
2004
2005
Ellsworth/UA
Documenting changes in behavior through time
requires a clear understanding of competing forces
& inherent change in the system. Market forces
(new registrations) push users towards greater
usage. In 2001, thiamethoxam was available, but
by late 2002, acetamiprid became available as well.
Still later (2004), dinotefuran was available to
cotton growers. All the while, imidacloprid was
available as a foliar spray either alone or in mixture
with a pyrethroid. Whitefly pressures also change
over time. In our case, pressures were low but
increasing 2001-04 until 2005 when whitefly
pressures were at a decade high. This pushes usage
upward. Our impact on behavior should show some
kind of decline in usage as a consequence of
deployment of our educational programs for cotton
growers in Multi-Crop communities.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
The next few charts will use the following color
scheme to denote the FOUR cropping communities
identified in the data. Note that cotton is grown in
all four communities and that all data is with
respect to what a cotton grower does in each of
these communities: simple Cotton-Intensive
through to the most complex Multi-Crop community
where cotton, melons, and vegetables are grown.
Note that heretofore, we did not recognize the
“cotton-vegetable” community as a distinct
community type, and thus, there are no specific
guidelines that dictate usage in this community
type.
19
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
20
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Coc
Cotton Communities
LaP
Pin
Mar
Moh
Coc
LaP
Gra
Mar
Moh
May 20,2008
Cotton Usage of
Neonicotinoids
MCneo = 0
50
Very few Cotton-Intensive in Yuma Co.
Very few Multi-Crop in Pinal or Maricopa Co.
No Cotton/Melon in Yuma Co.
Analyses for Yuma, Maricopa and Pinal Co. only
Pin
Yum
Pim
Cotton
40
% Sprays
•
•
•
•
Gra
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Yum
Pim
30
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
% Sprays that contained a neonicotinoid for cotton
fields in Cotton-Intensive communities of Yuma Co.
These growers should be limited to no more than
two non-consecutive neonicotinoid sprays (gray
line). Cotton neonicotinoid usage started at 0% in
2001-2003 and increased as acetamiprid use
increased, topping out at ca. 45%.
This bubble chart indicates the number and types of
communities that grow cotton by county. As
expected, there are very few Cotton-Intensive
communities in Pinal county, but they do exist
there! Conversely, there are very few Multi-Crop
communities in Pinal or Maricopa counties, but
again they do exist there.
Our guidelines were published in 2003 and our
educational efforts were intense to begin with and
then re-intensified in 2005 (red arrow).
Our analyses will focus on these larger agricultural
counties where most of the whitefly applications
are made each year.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
21
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Pin
Yum
May 20,2008
Cotton Usage of
Neonicotinoids
Pim
Coc
Gra
LaP
Moh
50
Yum
Pim
Multicrop
4-fold
20
Similar investment
60
40
10
20
0
0
2002
Cotton Sprays
Targeting Whiteflies
80
30
2001
May 20,2008
100
Cotton
40
Pin
Mar
MCneo = 0
22
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
% Sprays
Moh
% Sprays
Mar
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
2003
2004
2005
Cotton
Multicrop
2001
2002
Ellsworth/UA
2003
2004
2005
Ellsworth/UA
Cotton growers in Multi-Crop communities of Yuma
Co. had very small usage of this class of chemistry
in 2001-2002, and significantly higher usage in
2003. By 2005, the trend was reversed, presumably
as a result of our education, showing a 4-fold
reduction in neonicotinoid usage in comparison to
cotton users in Cotton-Intensive communities.
As a check to be sure that there are not large
differences in pressure or spray investments for
cotton by community, we can look at the % of
Sprays that were targeting whiteflies. In general,
both communities are spraying whiteflies about 6080% of the time.
Of course, the guidelines would have suggested no
neonicotinoid usage in Multi-Crop communities. So
ca. 10% of the applications made were at odds
with the guidelines.
% Sprays (wf target) Yuma LSmeans
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
23
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
24
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Pin
Yum
Cotton Usage of
pyriproxyfen
Pim
Coc
Gra
LaP
Cotton
50
Multicrop
Pin
Mar
Moh
MCk > CIk
60
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Yum
% Sprays
15
40
30
20
May 20,2008
Cotton Usage of
buprofezin
Pim
MCc < CIc
Cotton
Multicrop
10
5
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
0
2005
2001
2002
2003
2004
Ellsworth/UA
2005
Ellsworth/UA
If neonicotinoid usage is going up through time,
albeit at different rates, and whitefly control
investments are stable, other chemistry must be
changing. In this case, an IGR, pyriproxyfen has
been steadily declining in usage in Cotton-Intensive
communities, obviously in favor of neonicotinoid
chemistry (usually acetamiprid). This is consistent
with guidelines in general.
Buprofezin, another IGR, is not as popular in
general, and is also subject to some crosscommodity constraints on usage in Multi-Crop
areas (because of broad registrations). Here again,
it appears that growers in Multi-Crop communities
are minimizing their usage of buprofezin in
comparison to Cotton-Intensive communities.
Also, there has been marginal increases in
pyrproxyfen usage in Multi-Crop communities and
this suggests that growers there are trying to make
use of neonicotinoid alternatives.
% Sprays (Bupro) Yuma
% Sprays (Pyriprox) Yuma
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
25
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
May 20,2008
Insecticides in Yuma
Neonicotinoids
Knack
Pyriproxyfen
Coc
Gra
LaP
Courier
Buprofezin
26
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Pin
Mar
Moh
May 20,2008
Yum
Cotton Usage of
Neonicotinoids
Pim
Others
MCneo = 0
50
CottonIntensive
40
% Sprays
Moh
% Sprays
Mar
May 20,2008
N = 11–20
Cotton
Multicrop
30
20
10
MultiCrop
0
N > 234
2003
2004
2005
2001
2002
Ellsworth/UA
2003
2004
2005
Ellsworth/UA
The conclusions are quite different as we move to
the central part of the state and examine Pinal Co.
usage data. Here it would seem that the clientele
do not differentiate their usage of neonicotinoids by
community type. The reasons for this are unknown
at this time, but qualitative analyses of subject
interviews should help us understand if this is a
problem with the guidelines, perception of spatial
dynamics, or perception of risk, among other
potential factors. It could be as simple as growers
not recognizing they are operating within a MultiCrop community, for example.
Reviewing the dynamics of major chemistries over
time, we see all three trends simultaneously.
Neonicotinoid usage has gone up in both
community types over time, but less so in MultiCrop communities. Pyriproxfen usage has remained
steady in these same communities, but declined in
Cotton-Intensive communities. Buprofezin is not
used very much over this period, but in declining
amounts in the Multi-Crop communities.
% Sprays (Neonicotinoids), Pinal
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
27
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
28
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
Neonicotinoids
Insecticides in Pinal
Knack
Pyriproxyfen
Coc
Courier
Buprofezin
Gra
Pin
Yum
Pim
Cotton
Usage of
Neonicotinoids
Mar
LaP
May 20,2008
Moh
Others
MCneo = 0
50
CottonIntensive
Cotton
% Sprays
40
N > 459
MultiCrop
10
0
2004
2005
2.3-fold
20
N = 11–20
2003
Multicrop
30
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
Maricopa Co. is another central AZ county and
surrounds the city of Phoenix. Usage of
neonicotinoids has changed over our key period,
2003-2005. Initially, cotton growers in Multi-Crop
communities were using neonicotinoids at a much
higher rate than cotton growers in Cotton-Intensive
areas. This trend reversed abruptly in 2004 and
continued in 2005 with a 2.3-fold reduction in use
of neonicotinoids in Multi-Crop communities. This
would suggest that practitioners were influenced
by the guidelines, although there remained about
15% of sprays containing a neonicotinoid in cotton
within Mult-Crop communities.
Usage dynamics over time: While other insecticides
are used generally about 3/4ths of the time,
neonicotinoid usage is consistent and
undifferentiated by community type are time.
% Sprays (Acetam) Maricopa
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
29
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Insecticides in Maricopa
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
30
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Neonicotinoids
Knack
Pyriproxyfen
Acetamiprid Use in ALL Cotton
Courier
Buprofezin
Others
User reports (CIL)
Intruder Acres (%)
CottonIntensive
N > 228
MultiCrop
N = 9–19
100
2004
2005
Yuma Co.
60
40
20
N ==>
2005
2006
2007
11, 13
9, 5
14, 2
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
Data until now has all been from pesticide use
reports maintained by ADA and only for 2001-2005.
This dataset is different; it is from user reports in a
Cotton Insect Losses process that we conduct each
year with practitioners and brings our information
forward to 2007. While we cannot separate
communities spatially, we can contrast Yuma Co.
(which is predominated by Multi-Crop
communities) to the rest of the low desert of AZ
(which is predominated by Cotton-Intensive
communities). Here again, we see that on average,
users use less neonicotinoids in cotton in multcropped areas in comparison to cotton-intensive
regions. It would appear that the guidelines are
observed in general. (Acetamiprid is the major
cotton neonicotinoid and dominates this
marketplace).
Cotton in Cotton-Intensive communities expanded
their usage of neonicotinoids, maintained usage of
pyriproxyfen and reduced usage of buprofezin.
Cotton in Multi-Crop communities minimized
neonicotinoid usage in favor of pyriproxyfen, and
buprofezin usage declined consistent with the
guidelines.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
Rest (<2000')
80
0
2003
4.4-fold difference
31
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
32
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Correlation Between Neonicotinoid Soil & Foliar Uses
Correlation Between Neonicotinoid Soil & Foliar Uses
Fneo + Sneo ! 100%
Fneo + Sneo ! 100%
User reports (Lettuce)
Fall Lettuce
100
80
80
60
Compliance
40
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Soil Use
2004-2005 (0/15)
2005-2006 (515)
2006-2007 (3/13)
2007-2008 (1/10)
Non-compliance
60
Compliance
!"#$%"&'()*#%+,
----D-0-1/-2345
40
(% Treated Acres)
20
Foliar Use
(% Treated acres)
Non-compliance
Foliar Use
(% Treated Acres)
Foliar Use
Foliar Use
(% Treated acres)
100
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Soil Use
(% Treated acres)
(% Treated acres)
6"78%+,--!"!#$%&'()*#+,,-.+,,/
6"78%+,--!"!#$%&'()*#+,,-.+,,/
So far, we have examined exclusively cottongrowers behavior. In this chart we are showing
how lettuce growers make use of the neonicotinoid
class of chemistry as reported in user reports of our
Vegetable Insect Losses workshops.
Looking at growers of fall lettuce from 2004-2007,
we can see that the majority of pest control
advisors (PCAs) are within the compliance zone.
There are some examples where non-compliance is
occurring, 9/53.
With foliar uses on one axis and soil uses on the
other, we can test whether they are observing our
guidelines and the labels of some products by not
using foliar neonicotinoids over the top of crops
that have already used a soil neonicotinoid. So a
user reporting 70% soil use and 20% foliar use of
this class could be in compliance (total 90%).
However, a user who reports 100% soil use AND
50% foliar use is clearly outside the guidelines.
Data from Palumbo, unpubl.
Data from Palumbo, unpubl.
!!
33
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
!$
34
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Correlation Between Neonicotinoid Soil & Foliar Uses
9&):*%("'8):-;<<)%*%=
9#-3"&&+8%)*(->8"%%"()
Fneo + Sneo ! 100%
Spring Lettuce
2004-2005 (3/15)
2005-2006 (11/15)
2006-2007 (4/13)
2007-2008 (5/10)
Compliance
60
!"#$%"&'()*#%+,
----./-0-1/-2345
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Y=96.2-3.6x
2
R = 0.60
40
20
2006
60
2005
60
2004
40
20
2003
60
60
40
20
60
40
20
2002
40
20
60
40
20
2001
6"78%+,--!"!#$%&'()*#+,,-.+,,/
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
6"78%+,--012%345*#%67%428
Things looked good in the fall where they are
battling whiteflies primarily. However, in spring
lettuce, the picture changes and now shows closer
to 50% non-compliance. Why is this? As it turns
out, many of these neonicotinoid uses are likely
targeting aphids rather than whiteflies, which are
less of a concern in the spring crop. So perception
of the resistance risk may be quite different
between users in the fall vs. users in the spring.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
60
2000
40
20
1999
60
1998
40
20
Soil Use
(% Treated acres)
?*8@+-!=&'A-B+#5)C)+5
60
40
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% Reduction compared to UTC
Non-compliance
80
60
40
20
(% Treated Acres)
Foliar Use
Foliar Use
(% Treated acres)
100
John Palumbo has been doing systematic
examinations of imidacloprid efficacy (soil uses) in
broccoli for the past 10 seasons. Charting efficacy
relative to a control shows rather marked
reductions in efficacy in these studies. While users
don’t widely report problems with this use pattern
and soil uses, especially in fall crops, are still almost
universally practiced, this is a warning sign that we
must re-consider our management program and
decide whether further steps are needed to
stabilize the control system. A dialog is currently
underway with clientele through our CrossCommodity Research and Outreach Program
working group.
!"
35
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
!#
36
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
2008 WERA-069, Arizona Report
May 20,2008
Photo credit: J.
Silvertooth
Cooperative Extension Model
• Identify problem through stakeholder feedback
– Stable whitefly management threatened by overuse of a
key class of chemistry
• Develop solutions through applied research &
education
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Arizona Ag Statistics (AZ-NASS)
Western Region IPM Grants Program
– Analysis of agroecosystem suggests variable risks;
guidelines are generated, published & workshops
conducted
• Assess & measure impacts and changes in client
behavior
– Cotton growers making insecticide use choices based
ostensibly on guidelines
http://cals
http://cals..arizona.
arizona.edu/crops
• Develop feedback & make adjustments in
research & education
– New data on imidacloprid performance; new products?
Ellsworth/UA
Ellsworth/UA
A large group of people are involved in the larger
effort to research, develop, and disseminate crosscommodity whitefly management programs [e.g.,
T.J. Dennehy, Y. Carriére, C. Ellers-Kirk (all UA); S.
Naranjo, J. Blackmer, S. Castle (USDA-ARS); P.
Dutilleul (McGill U.); R.L. Nichols (Cotton Inc.); AZ
Cotton Growers Assoc., Western Growers Assoc., AZ
Crop Protection Assoc.]. In addition, we thank the
ADA and AZ-NASS for cooperating on the
development of a pesticide use database; WRIPM &
Cotton Inc. for providing grant support; and the
Arizona Cotton Research & Protection Council for
providing GIS mapping support.
What I have detailed today, quickly, is the classic
Extension model, where workers identify problems
through stakeholder engagement and they develop
solutions through applied research and education.
These are time-tested standards in Extension.
However, a modern program continues with formal
assessments that measure impacts and changes in
client behavior. And with this information, we can
benefit from feedback that helps us make needed
adjustments in our research & education programs.
Growers did in fact alter their insecticide use
patterns as a result of our guidelines. However,
resistance remains a threat to this and other
chemistries. We will have to consider this along
with other results in the generation of new
research, new guidelines, and education.
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
The Arizona Pest Management Center (APMC) as part of its
function maintains a website, the Arizona Crop Information Site
(ACIS), which houses all crop production and protection
information for our low desert crops, including a PDF version of
this presentation for those interested in reviewing its content.
37
Ellsworth, Fournier, Palumbo, Carriere
38